Brain cancer patient DJ Daniel faces 3 new tumors after inspiring President Trump, law enforcement

[ElChupacabra]

What is 'obtuse' is claiming there are cuts when the legislation hasn't even been passed yet.

Odd that you don't address the intention, which is to make cuts to this program and leave people without healthcare coverage. So is it better to call them "proposed cuts"? The Senate is likely to send this back to the House with less cuts, but there will like be some either way.

 

[NuffSaid]

Pawn?
Only in the minds of the most politically driven, the most skeptical.

So, No, I don't think so.
More accurately, giving the kid one of his wishes,.

DJ's pursuit of being sworn in by numerous law enforcement agencies stems from his passion for policing and his desire to connect with the law enforcement community. Since his diagnosis, he and his father, Theodis Daniel, have been on a mission to have DJ recognized by as many police departments as possible. By March 30, 2025, DJ had been sworn in by 914 law enforcement agencies, and by May 30, 2025, this number had grown to 1,351 agencies, reflecting his ongoing quest to fulfill his dream and inspire others.​

So the leader of a party whose cult members stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers and then he pardoned them is pretending to give a shit about law enforcement brings this kid out because why?

I'm rather skeptical that you have any clue at all what motives 'MAGA', much less what they may, or more likely may not, think.
Its like 3 blind men grabbing different parts of an elephant and describing the animal.

Motives of MAGA are simple. To appease Trump. Whatever he says, MAGA jump to do it.

Gotta find “waste” - let’s strip out funding to help research, to help other humans around the world, to help people fly or pay taxes.

But to strip out wasted taxpayer money on his lavish 4 day weekend golf outings - oh, he deserves it! He’s too busy owning the libz.

 

[eohrnberger]

Odd that you don't address the intention, which is to make cuts to this program and leave people without healthcare coverage.

The legislation isn't even in final form, or passed, as of yet. The Senators have to weigh in on it, and make their amendments.

This mind read 'intention' of yours is laden with political motivation, wrapped in a push narrative, originated before even a single legislative word was put down, and wholly politically motivated.

So is it better to call them "proposed cuts"? The Senate is likely to send this back to the House with less cuts, but there will like be some either way.

Yes, I fully understand that any reduction in government, its expense, its spending, its size and scope, are an affront to you, just as long as others are on the hook for paying for it.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”​

― Margaret Thatcher​

Same ol', same ol' run of the mill leftist position, spend other people's money freely.

 

[eohrnberger]

So the leader of a party whose cult members stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers and then he pardoned them is pretending to give a shit about law enforcement brings this kid out because why?

There's so much factually incorrect, and hyper-partisan laden wrong with this opinion.
I think you need to exit from the liberal / progressive media echo chamber.
Much the same can be for the below.

Motives of MAGA are simple. To appease Trump. Whatever he says, MAGA jump to do it.

Gotta find “waste” - let’s strip out funding to help research, to help other humans around the world, to help people fly or pay taxes.

But to strip out wasted taxpayer money on his lavish 4 day weekend golf outings - oh, he deserves it! He’s too busy owning the libz.

 

[Greenbeard]

Just the facts.

Inviting guests to the State of the Union is a longstanding practice where the president, first lady, and members of Congress and both Democrats and Republican have brought individuals of all ages to highlight policy priorities. Democrats have often invited cancer patients, survivors, or advocates to underscore the need for healthcare reform, protection of pre-existing conditions under the ACA, and increased funding for cancer research through agencies like the National Cancer Institute. Specific names and stories may be mentioned in the speech, but often guests are acknowledged in the gallery or through related press releases and media coverage by lawmakers.

Grok/AI

Inviting a cancer patient after (unsuccessfully, thankfully) trying to remove pre-existing condition protections and while actively defunding pediatric cancer research is . . . poor form.

 

[NuffSaid]

There's so much factually incorrect, and hyper-partisan laden wrong with this opinion.
I think you need to exit from the liberal / progressive media echo chamber.
Much the same can be for the below.

Trump had a "Stop the Steal" rally. That is true.
Thousands showed up because they believed their cult leader that the election was stolen. That is also true.
Hundreds broke into the Capitol on Jan 6th - that is true
Many police officers were injured during this. Some of the police were assaulted by Trump's cult members. - this is also true
Trump pardoned everyone who was charged on Jan 6th - even those who assaulted police officers - that is true.

Tell me again what is not factually correct?

 

[ClaraD]

So y'all gonna talk about this administration purposefully defunding cancer research or?? Just keep falling for this stupid propaganda?

And we know Trump revoked the humanitarian visa of a 4 year old girl with cancer and deported a US citizen child with cancer. The 4 year old will die if deported and the other child was a citizen and deported on the way to treatment without her medication and against the parents wishes

 

[ClaraD]

Republicans want cancer patients, even US citizens deported

 

[ElChupacabra]

The legislation isn't even in final form, or passed, as of yet. The Senators have to weigh in on it, and make their amendments.

This mind read 'intention' of yours is laden with political motivation, wrapped in a push narrative, originated before even a single legislative word was put down, and wholly politically motivated.

Sorry, but this is absurd. The House bill outlines some pretty extensive cuts, so there's no mind reading of intention since it's clearly laid out, and as I said, now it goes to the Senate where the cuts may be modified but to what extent we don't know.

Yes, I fully understand that any reduction in government, its expense, its spending, its size and scope, are an affront to you, just as long as others are on the hook for paying for it.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”​

― Margaret Thatcher​

Same ol', same ol' run of the mill leftist position, spend other people's money freely.

This is another odd comment, since in the case of healthcare we end up paying for people's lack of coverage in one form or another. Until the US becomes a country where people just die off without seeking healthcare, this problem will continue. We spend other people's money when people don't have coverage in the form of the increased costs hospitals take on treating people without coverage and a sicker population also affects the workforce etc. That you quote Thatcher is telling, because herself and the Tories have tried to starve the NHS with some pretty bad results which in part led to their recent ouster.

What cracks me up with the "other's people's money" schtick is those who often say it really mean it as a cover for reducing benefits to the lower income class and transferring it to the elites, which is the case here in the form of tax cuts to that group. Apparently the transfer of wealth is only offensive when it trickles down.

 

[eohrnberger]

Trump had a "Stop the Steal" rally. That is true.
Thousands showed up because they believed their cult leader that the election was stolen. That is also true.
Hundreds broke into the Capitol on Jan 6th - that is true
Many police officers were injured during this. Some of the police were assaulted by Trump's cult members. - this is also true
Trump pardoned everyone who was charged on Jan 6th - even those who assaulted police officers - that is true.

Tell me again what is not factually correct?

Cult members is BS.

'stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers' is only the 1/2 of the context, the part that supports your demanded narrative, and is misleading.

'he pardoned them is pretending to give a shit about law enforcement' is a BS push narrative.
That's not why the pardons were issued, and you know it, yet you chose to mischaracterize it as you have.

Do you recall the SCOTUS ruling specific the Jan 6th rioters being overcharged?

Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction law used in Jan. 6 prosecutions​

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-obstruction-law-used-in-jan-6-prosecutions-00165761 ​

Biden's DOJ being politicized and wielded as a political weapon. Over charging against people who have differing political positions and opinions than theirs, than the accepted Demo, Lib, Prog ideology permits.

The characterization of your post being 'hyper-partisan laden' is accurate.

 

[NuffSaid]

Cult members is BS.

Most, if not all, of those that attended the rally truly believed that the election was stolen and rigged. That is a definition of a cult member. They blindly believe the leader.

'stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers' is only the 1/2 of the context, the part that supports your demanded narrative, and is misleading.

Who what is the other "context" why these people broke through barriers, assaulted police officers, broke windows at Capitol, destroyed and stole property, and walked around the Capitol looking for Mike Pence? Why were officers assaulted?

'he pardoned them is pretending to give a shit about law enforcement' is a BS push narrative.
That's not why the pardons were issued, and you know it, yet you chose to mischaracterize it as you have.

Why did he pardon those who assaulted police officers?

Do you recall the SCOTUS ruling specific the Jan 6th rioters being overcharged?

Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction law used in Jan. 6 prosecutions​

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-obstruction-law-used-in-jan-6-prosecutions-00165761 ​

Great, and what resulted from that? Were some sentences reduced? Were some released from prison? In the end it doesn't matter, every single one of them were pardoned.

Biden's DOJ being politicized and wielded as a political weapon. Over charging against people who have differing political positions and opinions than theirs, than the accepted Demo, Lib, Prog ideology permits.

Assaulting police officers, destroying government property, stealing government property is "over charging against people with differing political positions and opinions"? Interesting take.

The characterization of your post being 'hyper-partisan laden' is accurate.

MAGA doesn't like the fact that Trump pardoned those who assaulted police officers.
MAGA thinks that everyone who was involved in Jan 6th was just an innocent bystander.

 

[OlNate]

Hi Ol Nate. Proof that backs up what I wrote above, (post 102). is available on C-SPAN's YouTube channel. The specific moment begins approximately at the 2:27:48 mark. When the camera pans the room at around 2:28:12, it shows a contrast between the two sides of the chamber: many Republican members of Congress are standing and applauding, while a significant number of individuals on the Democratic side appear to remain seated and not clapping at that point. However, at 2:28:06, some Democratic members are briefly visible clapping in the background.

So, again, thanks for this Trix. I reviewed the footage, and it's pretty much what I watched.

I've gone over it a few times, and it would appear that the total time the Democrats were on camera was less than a few seconds, and never at the start of anything Trump said, but rather after what I would consider extended applause, so unless other footage is available, I'm left confused at the assertion that the Democrats did not applaud as it's not immediately obvious from this footage that they didn't.

The not standing thing appears to be a coordinated protest against Trump's policies. Personally that's a little too much sensationalism for me, but then again so is standing up for every word out of his mouth...hehe... The whole thing seems rather theatrical compared to what I'm used to, but I acknowledge that's likely due to cultural differences between our two countries, and I can't be overly motivated to get too worked up about it. On a personal note, that kid being hoisted up like that made me uncomfortable. If it were my son, I would not allow him to be used in that way, no matter if it was the party I hated or the party I voted for, but I guess I can only speak for myself.

Anyway, I definitely appreciate the link. My conclusion is that this is much ado about nothing, but that's a lot of stuff these days, so the most I can be inspired to say is "meh".

 

[eohrnberger]

Most, if not all, of those that attended the rally truly believed that the election was stolen and rigged.

So far all we have is that this is you opinion, an unsupported one at that.

That is a definition of a cult member.

No, it isn't. Having differing political opinions and positions than yours is NOT automatically a 'cult', no matter how much you want to make them, and make it a tribal 'Us vs. Them' issue.

MAGA isn't a 'cult':

• Lack of Total Isolation and Control:
  Cults typically isolate members from society, controlling their behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions (often described as the BITE model: Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional control). MAGA supporters, however, are not physically or socially isolated. They participate in mainstream society, hold jobs, engage in public discourse, and can freely leave the movement without formal repercussions like excommunication or shunning seen in cults. For example, a post on X notes that MAGA supporters "aren't isolated, can leave freely, and engage in society," highlighting a key distinction from cult structures.
  
  Unlike cults, which often require members to sever ties with non-members, MAGA supporters maintain family, social, and professional networks outside the movement. They are not confined to a closed community under a leader’s direct control.
  
  
• Diversity of Thought and Internal Debate:
  Cults typically enforce rigid conformity and suppress dissent, but MAGA exhibits internal disagreements, suggesting independent thought. For instance, a post on X from @Grand_Ole_Evan in December 2024 points to debates within MAGA over issues like H-1B visas, stating, “Disagreement is a sign that people are actually thinking for themselves. We are a movement of diverse perspectives, not thought-policing.”
  
  This internal discourse contrasts with cults, where questioning the leader is often forbidden. MAGA supporters have publicly criticized policies or actions (e.g., vaccine stances or specific appointments), indicating a level of critical engagement not typical of cult dynamics.
  
  
• Broad Electoral Support, Not a Fringe Group
  
  
• Focus on Policy and Shared Values, Not Just Personality:
  Critics of the cult label argue that MAGA is driven by policy goals—such as economic nationalism, border security, and deregulation—rather than blind devotion to Trump. A post by @RealHickory on X in April 2024 states, “MAGA was never about Trump. It was always about America first,” framing it as a “revolution” against corruption and for freedom, not a personality-driven cult.
  
  
• No Evidence of Extreme Coercion or Abuse
  
  
• Political Polarization, Not Cult Dynamics:
  Some argue that labeling MAGA a cult oversimplifies political polarization. Sharday Mosurinjohn, in a 2020 article, cautioned that the cult label “doesn’t help us understand why [Trump] appeals to some voters” and risks demonizing supporters rather than analyzing their motivations, such as distrust in institutions or cultural grievances.
  
  The movement’s rhetoric, while intense, aligns with historical political fervor (e.g., evangelical support for George W. Bush), suggesting it’s an extension of partisan loyalty rather than a cult. A 2023 post on X by @BuzzPatterson argues that MAGA’s desire for “peace, a pumping economy, and law enforcement” reflects mainstream values, not cultish devotion.
  
  
• Supporters’ Agency and Rational Choice

They blindly believe the leader.

Based on the above, apparently not.

 

[eohrnberger]

Who what is the other "context" why these people broke through barriers, assaulted police officers, broke windows at Capitol, destroyed and stole property, and walked around the Capitol looking for Mike Pence? Why were officers assaulted?

While, yes, there were some who rioted, they were in the minority. Further, it was a legal, legitimate and permitted political demonstration, when a riot inadvertently broke out, contrary to the left's constant characterization to the opposite and propaganda (i.e. lying for political purposes).

Why did he pardon those who assaulted police officers?

Asked and answered previously.

Great, and what resulted from that? Were some sentences reduced? Were some released from prison? In the end it doesn't matter, every single one of them were pardoned.

The decision to pardon all of them isn't one which I have supported.

How I would have done it is set a list of charges against the rioters, split it up into ones which would be pardoned and ones which would not, anyone who is only charged with pardonable one get a pardon, anyone with even a single unpardonable charge doesn't.

Assaulting police officers, destroying government property, stealing government property is "over charging against people with differing political positions and opinions"? Interesting take.

When applied to everyone in attendance at the Capitol that day, not so much.

MAGA doesn't like the fact that Trump pardoned those who assaulted police officers.
MAGA thinks that everyone who was involved in Jan 6th was just an innocent bystander.

More unsupported conclusions / opinions of yours. Do you ever get tired of being so wrong so often?

 

[NuffSaid]

So far all we have is that this is you opinion, an unsupported one at that.


No, it isn't. Having differing political opinions and positions than yours is NOT automatically a 'cult', no matter how much you want to make them, and make it a tribal 'Us vs. Them' issue.

MAGA isn't a 'cult':

• Lack of Total Isolation and Control:
  Cults typically isolate members from society, controlling their behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions (often described as the BITE model: Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional control). MAGA supporters, however, are not physically or socially isolated. They participate in mainstream society, hold jobs, engage in public discourse, and can freely leave the movement without formal repercussions like excommunication or shunning seen in cults. For example, a post on X notes that MAGA supporters "aren't isolated, can leave freely, and engage in society," highlighting a key distinction from cult structures.
  
  Unlike cults, which often require members to sever ties with non-members, MAGA supporters maintain family, social, and professional networks outside the movement. They are not confined to a closed community under a leader’s direct control.

• 
  Maintain family of MAGA members, go to trump rallies, and signing up for Truth Social because they view other types of media to be "unfair to Trump"
  
  

  [*]Diversity of Thought and Internal Debate:
  Cults typically enforce rigid conformity and suppress dissent, but MAGA exhibits internal disagreements, suggesting independent thought. For instance, a post on X from @Grand_Ole_Evan in December 2024 points to debates within MAGA over issues like H-1B visas, stating, “Disagreement is a sign that people are actually thinking for themselves. We are a movement of diverse perspectives, not thought-policing.”
  
  This internal discourse contrasts with cults, where questioning the leader is often forbidden. MAGA supporters have publicly criticized policies or actions (e.g., vaccine stances or specific appointments), indicating a level of critical engagement not typical of cult dynamics.\

  MAGA supporters do not criticize any policy Trump has offered. If they do, MAGA threaten to have them primaried.
  
  

  [*]Broad Electoral Support, Not a Fringe Group

  Cults like MAGA are large in numbers. Lots of people who listened to AM radio and Fox News are attracted to the same lines from Trump.
  
  

  [*]Focus on Policy and Shared Values, Not Just Personality:
  Critics of the cult label argue that MAGA is driven by policy goals—such as economic nationalism, border security, and deregulation—rather than blind devotion to Trump. A post by @RealHickory on X in April 2024 states, “MAGA was never about Trump. It was always about America first,” framing it as a “revolution” against corruption and for freedom, not a personality-driven cult.

  Its Trump first. Has always been.
  Bi-partisan border policy was shot down because Trump viewed it as something that disrupted his continual claims of border issues.
  Trump gets a plane from a country he once coined as being a terrorist nation, and MAGA never question if its legitimate. Since ass kisser Bondi and drunk Hegseth claim its all good, MAGA cheer wildly.
  See, it was about Trump, not policy.
  
  

  [*]No Evidence of Extreme Coercion or Abuse

  Coerced millions of MAGA to think that 2020 election was rigged and stolen. Even got lawyers disbarred because they fell for his bullshit.
  
  

  [*]Political Polarization, Not Cult Dynamics:
  Some argue that labeling MAGA a cult oversimplifies political polarization. Sharday Mosurinjohn, in a 2020 article, cautioned that the cult label “doesn’t help us understand why [Trump] appeals to some voters” and risks demonizing supporters rather than analyzing their motivations, such as distrust in institutions or cultural grievances.
  
  The movement’s rhetoric, while intense, aligns with historical political fervor (e.g., evangelical support for George W. Bush), suggesting it’s an extension of partisan loyalty rather than a cult. A 2023 post on X by @BuzzPatterson argues that MAGA’s desire for “peace, a pumping economy, and law enforcement” reflects mainstream values, not cultish devotion.
  
  
  [*]Supporters’ Agency and Rational Choice

Based on the above, apparently not.

Peace? Ukraine is still going on.
Pumping economy? His tariffs have thrown a lot uncertainty into the economy.
Law enforcement? You mean the same group that assaulted cops and were pardoned by Trump? Please.

 

[MAGAnificent]

You don’t give one solitary **** about that boy.

Projection.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sorry, but this is absurd.

Has he legislation been passed and signed into law yet?

Further:

• House Republican Leadership:
  House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has defended the bill, asserting on NBC’s Meet the Press on June 1, 2025, that “4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so.” He claimed the bill protects Medicaid for seniors, children, mothers, and the disabled, targeting only “waste, fraud, and abuse” and ineligible recipients, such as undocumented immigrants.
  
  Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), House Budget Committee Chair, echoed this, stating the bill reforms Medicaid to “deliver for Americans who need coverage most” by eliminating inefficiencies.
  
  Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and others emphasized that the bill “makes NO changes to Social Security, Medicare, or veterans’ benefits” and protects Medicaid for vulnerable populations.
  
  
• Senate Republican Support:
  Some Republicans, like Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.), have pushed back against Democratic claims of cuts, arguing the bill strengthens Medicaid through reforms. An X post by @SecKennedy on May 22, 2025, claimed the bill “dramatically reduces waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, protecting these programs for the most vulnerable Americans.”

Highlighting:
“4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so.”
"eliminating inefficiencies"
“makes NO changes to Social Security, Medicare, or veterans’ benefits”
“dramatically reduces waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, protecting these programs for the most vulnerable Americans.”

Given the dishonesty and politically motivated spinning the Dem's and their compliant and complicit MSM propagandists have established for themselves, pardon me if I'm skeptical that they aren't being dishonest or politically motivated spinning their claims of cuts (and by cuts their usually flawed definition = a lack of an increase is a 'cut').

Do I explicitly trust the politician's assertions above? No, not at face value, but given the left's history of previous actions . . . . I have less trust in their claims.

This is another odd comment, since in the case of healthcare we end up paying for people's lack of coverage in one form or another. Until the US becomes a country where people just die off without seeking healthcare, this problem will continue. We spend other people's money when people don't have coverage in the form of the increased costs hospitals take on treating people without coverage and a sicker population also affects the workforce etc. That you quote Thatcher is telling, because herself and the Tories have tried to starve the NHS with some pretty bad results which in part led to their recent ouster.

What cracks me up with the "other's people's money" schtick is those who often say it really mean it as a cover for reducing benefits to the lower income class and transferring it to the elites, which is the case here in the form of tax cuts to that group. Apparently the transfer of wealth is only offensive when it trickles down.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Has he legislation been passed and signed into law yet?

Further:

• House Republican Leadership:
  House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has defended the bill, asserting on NBC’s Meet the Press on June 1, 2025, that “4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so.” He claimed the bill protects Medicaid for seniors, children, mothers, and the disabled, targeting only “waste, fraud, and abuse” and ineligible recipients, such as undocumented immigrants.
  
  Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), House Budget Committee Chair, echoed this, stating the bill reforms Medicaid to “deliver for Americans who need coverage most” by eliminating inefficiencies.
  
  Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and others emphasized that the bill “makes NO changes to Social Security, Medicare, or veterans’ benefits” and protects Medicaid for vulnerable populations.
  
  
• Senate Republican Support:
  Some Republicans, like Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.), have pushed back against Democratic claims of cuts, arguing the bill strengthens Medicaid through reforms. An X post by @SecKennedy on May 22, 2025, claimed the bill “dramatically reduces waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, protecting these programs for the most vulnerable Americans.”

Highlighting:
“4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so.”
"eliminating inefficiencies"
“makes NO changes to Social Security, Medicare, or veterans’ benefits”
“dramatically reduces waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, protecting these programs for the most vulnerable Americans.”

Given the dishonesty and politically motivated spinning the Dem's and their compliant and complicit MSM propagandists have established for themselves, pardon me if I'm skeptical that they aren't being dishonest or politically motivated spinning their claims of cuts (and by cuts their usually flawed definition = a lack of an increase is a 'cut').

Do I explicitly trust the politician's assertions above? No, not at face value, but given the left's history of previous actions . . . . I have less trust in their claims.

Well, the "eliminating inefficiencies" has been a bit of a laugh since the information has been less than reliable, and this is the similar kind of rhetoric used before a similar effort was rolled out in Arkansas with the goal of saving money by getting "moochers" off Medicaid. The results there were pretty interesting, and don't bode well for repeating the same at the national level. As for this insistence on the bill not being a law yet doesn't mean what's proposed in it cannot be scrutinized and debated.

 

[eohrnberger]

Well, the "eliminating inefficiencies" has been a bit of a laugh since the information has been less than reliable, and this is the similar kind of rhetoric used before a similar effort was rolled out in Arkansas with the goal of saving money by getting "moochers" off Medicaid. The results there were pretty interesting, and don't bode well for repeating the same at the national level.

This an over generalized conclusion.
Are both the federal and state programs to do so the same?
Do the two pieces of legislative share the same legislative language?
I hardly think so.

As for this insistence on the bill not being a law yet doesn't mean what's proposed in it cannot be scrutinized and debated.

Of course.
But at the same time, assertions of 'cuts' having been made are simply inaccurate, as no 'cuts' have yet been made.